15 WEEKS OLD AND FOOD!

[loopyredangel]

My almost 15 week old has been showing a keen interest in food for a couple of weeks now, putting hands in his mouth when we are eating, leaning forward when we have food, fussing when he sees us eating. So today I tried him with some baby rice pudding and he couldn't get enough he was pushing the spoon to his mouth, and was excited everytime the spoon was approaching his mouth. He now weighs 15lb and has been breastfed to this point and Iwill carry on breasfeeding, but is it okay to carry on feeding him, he woofed down a full tin of the small Heinz Rice Pudding. I fear the health visitors won't be happy, but DS seemed so relieved, content and a happy little boy after he got his food!

ok..The idea of sales had crossed my mind too - but I was thinking of it in terms of health issues. They are to afraid (in GERMANY) to say from 4 months on the jars - that is my point. From 4 months is from 4 months.

My argument was how do you interpret AFTER 4 months, which is what they put!

i think it leaves it open to the parent to interpret... which when you have conflicting information from HCPs, it gets tricky

so might as well wait until around 6 months, when introducing foods should be absolutely fine!

Actually even the WHO website gets confused it has leaflets that show 4 to 6 months, and its rubbish that babies only need milk for the first year, their iron reserves run out after 6 months which is the WHO recommend no later than 6 months.The WHO recommendation of 6 months is also mainly aimed at third world countries where weaning food is very poor nutriciationally
The latest research also showed that if you leave weaning after 6 months children have more allergies at 5 years old, because their immune system is not challenged enough.
I know several parents who have been advised by paediatrician to wean at 4 months especially formula fed babies.
I think on mumsnet there a myths that go round and people start to believe they are fact.

no-one has said babies only need milk for the first year

but that milk can be the main source of nutrition for the first year

iron stores do not run out bang on 6 monhts, they start to deplete that is for sure.. but baby rice and other first weaning foods like apple etc are hardly iron rich.....

anyway, we all do what we do, but i think it is fair to say that a 15 week old does not need anything other than milk

can you link to the latest research please? the one that states that if you leave weaning until after 6 months you increase the risk of allergies?

My ds 2 (14 weeks,16lb 10oz) has just started regularly downing 9oz bottles. Should I make him 2 bottles at a sitting to get more milk in him?

if he is draining every one, then you can offer more milk.... or at a push, hungry baby milk, although it can make babies constipated and give them tummy ache

he will settle down again soon !

He already has 4 scoops sma gold and 4 scoops hungry baby milk mixed. He has done since the 12 week growth spurt. (That lasted a week, he was waking at 4.30 am adn draining a 9oz bottle.)

loopy, I do think that every child is different so I don't think you should stress yourself over eating habits. DS (2.6) is an awful eater. He can go days just eating a slice or two of toast each day. He won't touch anything new. He won't even eat things he use to like. As a baby, I did BLW at 6 months as he refused to let a spoon near him (still does!) and he was so picky the only way we could get him to taste things (even things like cake!) was to put a little on his lips and force him to try it. That way he'd at least eat something. Even food put in front of him wouldn't be touched unless he knew exactly what it tasted like.

DD, we started solids at 6 months too and used BLW. She ate anything. We also spoon feed her now as it's quite convenient. And it's only now, at a year old, that she's getting a bit fussier.

There's good evidence come out recently (since the WHO advice) that once babies are fed anything other than milk, their risk of landing up in hospital with infection is significantly higher.

Exclusive breastfeeding has the most protective effect, and mix-feeding has a partial protective effect. Weaning carries the biggest risk.

Interestingly, the infections babies get are not just gastro infections, which you could relate to washing/sterilising issues, but also chest infections and ear infections, ie it seems to be a true immune effect.

It's thought to be related to the "open gut" that little babies have.

The allergy risk of early weaning is very poorly understood. Allergy is very common and there are a lot of factors involved including genetic ones. So the evidence on allergy is very contradictory, but the evidence on infection is very clear.

And it's worth noting, the increased risk of infection isn't "more colds", it's "more hospital admissions" ie potentially serious stuff. When the figures are added up, the likelihood is that a vast number of hosiptal admissions are actually preventable simply by feeding babies breastmilk - although unfortunately as we can see on this forum, there's nothing simple about that.

Sorry, that second para should say "100% formula feeding and early weaning carries the biggest risk". I'm trying to get hld of the figures which separate the 2.

study on weaning after 6 months and allergies

there is also this

Well I have no intention of feeding my little one until he is old enough, I wasn't aware of the problems with open gut etc. so thank you one and all for the debate, it has helped me immensely.

The WHO 6 month recommendation is aimed at all children in the world. That's why bodies like the American Association of Paediatricians have adopted this as their official advice for American children. If you try to argue that Americans are "Third World" you will make some people very cross .

In fact, in their recommendation statement the WHO committee noted that in devolping world situations, babies may need solids before 6 months because malnourished mothers might be missing nutrients such as iron, whereas for mothers in affluent societies this would not be a consideration. So they're not saying that babies in industrialised nations could be weaned earlier than babies in the developing world, they're saying the exact opposite.

The WHO report of 2001 concluded that

• there was satisfactory evidence that most babies didn't need solids before 6 months
• there was evidence that weaning before 4 months carried risks, but a lack of evidence either way about weaning between 4 and 6 months.

They called for further research, specifically to investigate the risks of weaning earlier than 6 months. Those studies are now being reported in the medical journals and I've described some of that reseach in my post a moment ago.

I really think that anyone who wants to debate the WHO guidelines needs to read them - you can google the final report "The Optimal Duration of Exclusive Breastfeeding" and the (fairly technical) research review which led to it. I get really frustrated at the number of myths that are peddled about the advice. No-one is saying it's set in tablets of stone, but it is authoritative and the more recent research has added a lot of substance to it.

What will be really interesting to find out (research in progress) is whether potentially allergic children should have exposure to certain foods early on in order to stop them getting sensitised - but that would be about a tiny taste in a controlled environment, not about feeding them.

Christywhisty that madefor extremely interesting reading.

christy, i'm not a medic but the first research you've linked to is talking about delaying weaning until after 9 months, which no-one is talking about, are they? "Exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months is recommended by the World Health Organization and considered allergy preventive. However, it is not known whether prolonging exclusive breastfeeding for over 6 months provides further benefit in allergy prevention."
and of the families, 42% had allergies, how did they factor that out of the results, do you know?

the second piece to me, not having read anything but the abstract, seems to operate on a flawed premise that the rising rates of allergy are linked to the 6 month guideline, despite the fact that it's perfectly clear that weaning at 6 months is an aberration from the norm. "Rising rates of food allergies in early childhood reflect increasing failure of early immune tolerance mechanisms. There is mounting concern that the current recommended practice of delaying complementary foods until 6 months of age may increase, rather than decrease, the risk of immune disorders. Tolerance to food allergens appears to be driven by regular, early exposure to these proteins during a ?critical early window? of development."
so it's another argument for bfing, isn't it? and it has been said plenty of times on this thread that there isn't demonstrable harm (apart from the pita-ness) if you're weaning after 4 months, but the OP's baby isn't 4 months yet.
i'll be interested to see what welliemum says, especially if she has access to the full copy.

Oh, cross posted with your links, Christy.

I haven't time now unfortunately to discuss in detail , but both are interesting. I don't think either of those are of practical use for parents though.

The first study looked at exclusive breastfeeding to 9 months and found greater incidence of hypersensitivity. But there are 2 big problems with this.

Firstly: no-one is recommending exclusive breastfeeding to 9 months.

Secondly, this is an observational study and the big problem with these is reverse causation. In allergy research this happens because allergic families know they're allergic, and are much more likely to delay giving foods to babies. So, lots of studies show that babies who are weaned later are allergic, but you can't conclude anything because in many cases they were weaned later because they were allergic, not allergic because they were weaned later.

The other article isn't a research paper but an opinion paper - and it's always worth reading expert opinions - but all it really adds is to point out that the allergy/weaning issue is controversial.

There's a big trial going on that I'm aware of (likely more than one) which is properly randomised, and when the results come out it'll be very interesting to see what they show, because the reverse causation problem should be accounted for by randomising children to different treatment.

I'm just an interested reader, I should point out, so am not claiming any expertise - we're an allergic family and so this is of great interest to me. I find it really frustrating that there are no clear answers.

Well if it was soo harmful to wean a baby at 4 months there would be nothing for sale for babies from 4 months, manufacturers would be letting themselves in for something BIG style.

If a baby is 17 weeks old and really really polishes off bottles never seems content, but a few teaspoons of rice help by taking the edge off the hunger then why not? So long as what is chosen to feed is prefably allergie low.

An interesting article about celiac disease - and gluten:

"At very young ages, such as the first three months of life, this barrier may not be as complete as at older ages, thus allowing gliadin to pass even with small amounts of intake.

Conversely, when wheat products are introduced to an older child, such as those older than seven months, it tends to be in larger portion sizes, thus increasing the amount of gluten available to cross the gut."

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4554661.stm

It seems that no matter what you do, even waiting later, with gluten, may not help

oh and a word up on breastfeeding:

I was exclusively formula fed as a baby (like I have had to do for my baby - due to severe milk build up issues and the fact she drank so less - connected with her jaundice at birth ). I was hardly ill as a child, and was very healthy. My sister, was breastfed solely, and had nothing but throat infections, and ear infections GALORE.

I agree breastfeeding is good IF it works. But I would not really say it definately keeps you as healthy. Still everyone to their own.

I am a scientist and I did research 18 months ago when my son was coming up to 4 months old and decided to give him rice cereal mixed with breastmilk and some vegetables once he'd reached 4 months because the literature did not support waiting until 6 months for every baby (my son had reflux, the solids helped). I did not find conclusive evidence that waiting until 6 months was necessary (he was primarily breastfed throughout this). However, there was conclusive evidence that for babies under 4 months food is not appropriate.

the problem with feeding at 4 months is the sterilization - you need to be so careful to sterilize all feeding equipment, cook the food properly etc. It's a pain but should be done. By the time they are 6 months and crawling, sterilization becomes a moot point.

The problem with official guidance is that it's pulled from conflicting scientific studies and someone has to make a judgement call. They've done the best they can, but we need to realize that there are a lot of things that medical science doesn't know and guidance is never perfect. Ten years from now we will probably find out we're all doing something really wrong. So rather than be smug mums, isn't it better to offer best advice without judgement? Here's mine: try to wait until 17 weeks to reintroduce food if you can, stay away from everything other than rice and non-allergenic vegetables and fruit until your child is 6 months old, and peferably mix the rice cereal with breastmilk. Finally, at this age, make sure the majority of the nutrition is from breastmilk.

i do so dislike that offering what you feel is the best advice is somehow smug

also, aberdeenhiker, you have not mentioned at all in your post any of the signs a baby is physically ready for weaning....

i.e loss of tongue thrust reflex, being able to hold head well etc...

it is not just about perceived hunger

you are riught, in ten years the advice might be different, but the weaning age has got later not earlier, as advice has changed

we can only do the best with the info we have

and there is no evidence waiting until around 6 months can be harmful

ah good, the smug word, what a refreshing change to see that on a weaning thread. i absolutely do not think that you have said anything that hasn't already been said on this thread many times, aberdeenhiker, but good that you came on and insulted everyone.

i thikn we should be grateful it got to 120 posts before the word smug was rolled out !

If I can deflect some of the seriously negative comments towards the OP, then I'm happy to do so. When I was struggling with a young baby if I had heard some of the comments here directed to me, I'd have burst into tears.

But I do accept lulumama's comment that then offering my own advice might be a bit cheeky.

hang on a second, even according to your advice the OP is too early. and afawk this baby doesn't have reflux either, so there's no reason to go earlier than the guideline of 6 months. as i've said before, if the baby can pick the food up and eat it, which he may in all seriousness be able to do in a short time, then it would follow that feeding fruit and veg etc would make sense, but until then and barring any advice from medics re reflux, there's no benefit in it, just hassle.